Differing moral views are dividing the country and polarizing the left and the right more than ever before. This book offers unique solutions to improve communication and understanding between the two factions to fix our fractured political system. Morality is at the heart of political contention in American society. Unfortunately, our polarized belief systems severely inhibit the achievement of bipartisan compromises. A Battlefield of Values: America's Left, Right, and Endangered Center provides a candid but nonjudgmental examination of what people think and believe-and how this informs our divisions over core values. By addressing how individuals believe rather than how they vote, the book illuminates why 21st-century America is so conflicted politically and religiously; exposes what matters most to those on the right and left of the political, religious, and cultural spectrum; explains why the members of the endangered center in American life-the moderates-are struggling to make sense of the great divide between conflicting ideologies; and predicts how a degree of reconciliation and detente might be possible in the future. Authors Stephen Burgard and Benjamin J. Hubbard build a powerful case for how authentic communication between political factions is integral to bettering our society as a whole. Along the way, they illustrate the impact of religion and media on American belief systems and also explore the inability of news media to serve as mediators of this dilemma. This work will fascinate lay readers seeking perspective on our current political stalemate as well as serve college students taking courses in political science, communications, journalism, anthropology, or religious studies. Provides a unique analysis that shows how our seemingly irreconcilable differences can be turned into assets for transforming the United States into a better country Offers informed perspectives of American conflict from authors with more than 50 years of experience combined in their respective fields Explores a future using religion, technology, and science to mend distrust and tune up our political system Presents information and concepts appropriate for an academic lesson plan or for any civics-savvy reader

In this series of interviews and dialogues which took place between 1981 and 2003, Paul Ricoeur addresses some of the central questions of political philosophy and ethics: justice, violence, war, the environmental crisis, the question of evil, ethical and political action in the polis. Philosophical issues are brought to bear on present-day concerns and the practical realities of contemporary politics. How can the philosopher speak about politics without claiming superior insight or a higher order of knowledge? Ricoeur distinguishes three levels of society: 'tools' (modes of production and the accumulation of technology), 'institutions' (which are tied to national cultures) and 'values' (which claim to be universal). The philosopher's task is to probe each of these levels and open up spaces for reflection, criticism and democratic deliberation. It is to explore the paradoxes of the political rather than invoking certainties dictated by conscience. Just as there no longer exists a grand narrative about the past, so too there is no longer any utopia capable of projecting the desired future. What remains is human creativity, which marks the source common to the institutional frameworks that are already present and the horizons that extend beyond them. The philosopher's engagement lies in the promise to revive this source at the very moment it appears to dry up under the weight of the real. This volume of interviews and dialogues with one of the most important French philosophers of the post-war period will be of interest to anyone interested in the great political and ethical questions of our time.

Ethical discourse is commonly not a priority in a conventional finance syllabus. Moral sentiments often take a back seat to market sentiments, even in shaping the direction of ethical finance business. This anomaly persists despite growing interest in ethical finance. Taking an interdisciplinary and diverse perspective, this book enriches the evolving definition and scope of ethical finance literature by focusing on actors, products and regulation that shape markets. Considering the gap between theory and practice, this book bridges academic and professional knowledge in unpacking ethical and governance issues in the financial industry. In an effort to include as many viewpoints as possible, regardless of popularity or who holds them, the book editors gathered thoughts from diverse fields, including accounting, economics, ethics, finance, governance, law, management, philosophy and religion. Appealing to academic and non-academic stakeholders with an interest in ethics and finance, this book is the result of and a testament to a distinct educational and public engagement project that included different generations and communities, for future reference.

In Morality and Ethics of War, which includes a foreword by Major General Susan Coyle, ethicist Deane-Peter Baker goes beyond existing treatments of military ethics to address a fundamental problem: the yawning gap between the diverse moral frameworks defining personal identity on the one hand, and the professional military ethic on the other. Baker argues that overcoming this chasm is essential to minimising the ethical risks that can lead to operational and strategic failure for military forces engaged in today's complex conflict environment. He contends that spanning the gap is vital in preventing moral injury from befalling the nation's uniformed servants. Drawing on a revised account of what he calls 'the Just War Continuum', Baker develops a bridging framework that combines conceptual clarity and rigour with insights from cutting edge psychological research and creates a practical means for military leaders to negotiate the moral chasm in military affairs.

This volume collects twelve new essays by leading moral philosophers on a vitally important topic: the ethics of eating meat. Some of the key questions examined include: Are animals harmed or benefited by our practice of raising and killing them for food? Do the realities of the marketplace entail that we have no power as individuals to improve the lives of any animals by becoming vegetarian, and if so, have we any reason to stop eating meat? Suppose it is morally wrong to eat meat-should we be blamed for doing so? If we should be vegetarians, what sort should we be?